Medical/biological study (experimental study)

IEI-EMF provocation case studies: A novel approach to testing sensitive individuals.

Published in: Bioelectromagnetics 2018; 39 (2): 132-143

Aim of study (acc. to author)

1) To test whether exposure to radiofrequency exposure from a portable exposure device resulted in an increase in an electrosensitive subjects's symptom compared to sham exposure and
2) to determine whether electrosensitive probands could detect the active radiofrequency signal at greater than chance level.
Background/further details: Three (2 male, 1 female) subjects with self-diagnosed electromagnetic hypersensitivity were included. The tests were conducted in the home environments of the participants.
On the first day, two non-blinded open trials were conducted: one with radiofrequency exposure and one without (both subject and researcher were aware of the exposure status). Afterwards, 12 double-blind, randomized and counterbalanced trials were conducted consisting of 6 trials with radiofrequency exposure and 6 trials with sham exposure. Each trial ran for 105 minutes, starting with a 15 minutes baseline to assess the subject's symptoms prior to exposure. This was followed by a 30 minutes exposure/sham exposure accompanied by questions about symptoms and exposure status. Afterwards, symptoms were assessed in a 30 minutes post-exposure period. Finally, a 30 minutes rest closed the trial. The trials took part on three consecutive days.



Exposure Parameters
Exposure 1: 902–928 MHz
Exposure duration: 30 min each exposure (6 x in double-blind study)
Exposure 1
Main characteristics
Frequency 902–928 MHz
Exposure duration 30 min each exposure (6 x in double-blind study)
Additional info ISM band
Modulation type cf. additional info
Additional info digitally modulated like Wi-Fi and 3G and 4G signals
Exposure setup
Exposure source
  • portable, battery-operated device (RF modem)
Distance between exposed object and exposure source 30 cm
Chamber device was fully enclosed in a thermally insulated case
Setup exposure device was situated in front or to the side of the subject depending on what was comfortable for the subject
Sham exposure A sham exposure was conducted.
Measurand Value Type Method Mass Remarks
power density 0.3 W/m² mean measured - incident power density at the participant
power 1 W mean - - power output
Exposed system:

Methods Endpoint/measurement parameters/methodology

Investigated material:
Time of investigation:
  • before exposure
  • during exposure
  • after exposure

Main outcome of study (acc. to author)

No significant difference in symptom severity or exposure detection was found for any of the subjects between the two conditions (exposure and sham exposure). Belief of exposure strongly predicted symptom severity score for all subjects.
Study character:

Study funded by

  • National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australia

Related articles

  • van Moorselaar I et al. (2017): Effects of personalised exposure on self-rated electromagnetic hypersensitivity and sensibility - A double-blind randomised controlled trial.
  • Bräscher AK et al. (2017): Are media reports able to cause somatic symptoms attributed to WiFi radiation? An experimental test of the negative expectation hypothesis.
  • Carpenter DO (2015): The microwave syndrome or electro-hypersensitivity: historical background.
  • Eltiti S et al. (2015): Aggregated data from two double-blind base station provocation studies comparing individuals with idiopathic environmental intolerance with attribution to electromagnetic fields and controls.
  • Carpenter DO (2014): Excessive Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields May Cause the Development of Electrohypersensitivity.
  • Koteles F et al. (2013): Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) and electrosensibility (ES) - are they connected?
  • Röösli M et al. (2010): Sense and sensibility in the context of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure.
  • Kaul G (2009): [Is there an ability to perceive or to be sensitive on?]
  • Nam KC et al. (2009): Hypersensitivity to RF fields emitted from CDMA cellular phones: a provocation study.
  • Nieto-Hernandez R et al. (2008): Can evidence change belief? Reported mobile phone sensitivity following individual feedback of an inability to discriminate active from sham signals.
  • Hillert L et al. (2008): The effects of 884 MHz GSM wireless communication signals on headache and other symptoms: an experimental provocation study.
  • Kwon MS et al. (2008): Perception of the electromagnetic field emitted by a mobile phone.
  • Eltiti S et al. (2007): Does short-term exposure to mobile phone base station signals increase symptoms in individuals who report sensitivity to electromagnetic fields? A double-blind randomized provocation study.
  • Rubin GJ et al. (2006): Are some people sensitive to mobile phone signals? Within participants double blind randomised provocation study.
  • Wilen J et al. (2006): Psychophysiological tests and provocation of subjects with mobile phone related symptoms.
  • Rubin GJ et al. (2005): Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a systematic review of provocation studies.
  • Leitgeb N et al. (2003): Electrosensibility and electromagnetic hypersensitivity.
  • Hietanen M et al. (2002): Hypersensitivity symptoms associated with exposure to cellular telephones: no causal link.